The United Nations Relief and Works Agency unload aid in Gaza.
International organisations and individual countries have sought to play a diplomatic role in the Gaza conflict. Both the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) are playing significant roles. A branch of the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has been very active in humanitarian works in the blockaded Gaza Strip.[1] This aid is only for the civilians of Gaza and is comprised of shelters, clothing, food assistance, health care, schooling for children, garbage collection, and 'just about every other service usually provided by a state'.[2] Any donations provided for Palestinians goes through the UNRWA as the Hamas socio-political organisation, that has been in power since 2007, is considered a terrorist group by Canada, EU, Israel, Japan and U.S.; with Australia and the United Kingdom classifying its military wing as a terrorist group. The EU can be considered the biggest donor of financial assistance to the Palestinians, having given 3 billion Euros since 2000;[3] it would, obviously, refuse to pass such financial aid onto Hamas; this assistance is therefore channelled to the Palestinians through the UNRWA. The EU, refusing dialogue with Hamas due to its terrorism against Israeli civilians and hence not making it a legitimate resistance movement,[4] it does not take too much of a side in this conflict accusing both Gaza and Israel for violating humanitarian law and will begin talks once Gaza recognises Israel as a nation state.[5] There are diplomatic roles played by actors closer to Gaza Strip with varying results. The U.S. has also taken an interest, and hence, action in this conflict for an extended period of time; with its efforts renewed under the Obama administration.
The role of the U.S
The U.S. has consistently played a strong diplomatic role in the Gaza conflict and has faced steady criticism for siding with Israel over the conflict.[6] This tension is further highlighted in the following timeline of recent U.S intervention in the Gaza conflict.
Timeline of recent U.S. intervention in the Gaza Strip conflict:[7]
October 1991: The U.S. and the Soviet Union convened the Madrid Conference, in which Israeli and Palestinian leaders discussed economic development. Within this framework, Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, the Gaza-Jericho Agreement on May 4, 1994, and the Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities on August 29, 1994, which began the process of transferring authority from Israel to the Palestinians. 26 October 1994: Israel and Jordan signed a historic peace treaty, witnessed by President Clinton. This was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat's signing of the historic Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on September 28, 1995. July 2000: U.S. President Clinton hosted a summit at Camp David to address permanent status issues--including the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which failed to produce an agreement. April 2001: The Middle East Peace Summit commissioned the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell. The committee recommended an immediate end to the violence followed by confidence-building measures and a resumption of security cooperation and peace negotiations. April 2003: Building on the Mitchell report, the Quartet (the U.S., UN, EU, and the Russian Federation) announced the 'roadmap', a performance-based plan to bring about two states living in peace and security. 14 April 2004: Prime Minister Sharon put forward his Gaza disengagement initiative, proposing the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza as well as parts of the northern West Bank. U.S. President Bush endorsed this initiative viewing Gaza disengagement as an opportunity to implement the two-state vision. May 2005: Former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was appointed as Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement to work for a revitalization of the Palestinian economy after disengagement. November 2005: The United States brokered a landmark Agreement on Movement and Access to facilitate further progress on Palestinian economic issues. However, subsequently the Israeli leadership pledged not to work with a Palestinian government in which Hamas had a role. January 2006: Following Hamas' victory, the Quartet outlined three basic principles the Hamas-led PA must meet in order for the U.S. and the
U.S. President Barack Obama watches Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas shake hands at the trilateral meeting held 22 September 2009.
international community to reengage with the PA: renounce violence and terror, recognize Israel, and respect previous agreements, including the roadmap. The Hamas-led PA government rejected these principles, resulting in the suspension of U.S. assistance to the PA, complete prohibition on U.S. Government contacts with the PA, andprohibition of unlicensed transactions with the PA government. November 2007: Israeli and Palestinian leaders participated in an international conference in Annapolis, at which they committed to launch bilateral negotiations towards the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace. 22 January 2009: U.S. President Obama named Senator Mitchell envoy for Middle East peace. Special Envoy Mitchell travelled to the region and has subsequently returned on a nearly monthly basis in an effort to help create conditions to support a two-state solution and to re-launch productive negotiations. 22 September 2009: U.S. President Obama asks for regional assistance to end the Arab-Israeli in a trilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
As the above timeline illustrates, the U.S. has a strong diplomatic relationship with Israel and has shown commitment to promoting a Middle East peace settlement. A recent statement by U.S. Secretary Clinton on 18 April 2010 clearly illustrates this strong relationship, Clinton states: 'pursuing peace and recognised borders for Israel is one of our top priorities. We believe it is possible – indeed necessary – to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that provides Israelis, Palestinians, and all the people of the region security, prosperity, and the opportunity to live up to their full God-given potential. Israel today is confronting some of the greatest challenges in its history, but its promise and potential have never been greater. The United States will continue to stand with you, sharing your risks and helping shoulder your burdens, as we face the future together'.[8] Clinton emphasises that working towards peace in the Middle East and resolving the Gaza conflict is a challenging yet possible task, which the U.S. is committed to working towards.
Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama discuss the peace process.
In recent weeks, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's and U.S. President, Barack Obama's have had a series of meetings at the White House. During these meetings Obama requested that Netanyahu halt Jewish construction in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu has formally defied this request. Adrian Blomfield argues that this move 'takes relations between Israel and its superpower patron into uncharted territory.'[9] Blomfield elaborates, commenting: 'Mr Obama last week characterised the need for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement as vital for the security interests of the United States. Such sentiment, long expressed in private by some US officials, alarms Israel's supporters, who interpret it as meaning that Washington's traditionally unquestioning support for the Jewish state will become subordinate to America's own interests.'[10] These recent developments highlight that U.S. support for Israel may not be unconditional.
The current U.S. administration's approach to a peace in the Middle East has faced strong criticism. Carlo Strenger criticises the U.S. approach to resolving the conflict, arguing:' The basic problem is that, like Bill Clinton, the Obama administration believes that the two sides are essentially rational, acting in their own best interests, and that to get the process unstuck the mediator must simply bridge their differences. Rather, it is clear to me as a psychologist that the two sides are steeped in collective trauma, for which the only prescription is diplomatic therapy'.[11] Strenger criticises the U.S. approach for not acknowledging the emotional aspects of Israeli and Palestinian traumas. Further, Charles Fromm and Ellen Massey comment: 'the Barack Obama administration continues to overlook the crisis in Gaza, an approach which some experts say is an extension of the previous administration's policy'.[12] Fromm and Massey argue that current U.S. policy has done little to stop the Gaza Strip from plunging further into poverty and insecurity and that ‘rhetoric has failed to materialise into progress’.[13]
The role of Turkey
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a constructive relationship, until Israel's assault on Gaza in December 2008, an assault Turkey roundly criticised.
Turkey's response to the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008 was an immediate one harbouring a strong criticism towards the violence.[14] This active diplomacy approach to the crisis has demonstrated a new foreign policy vision for Turkey and overturns any old beliefs about its diplomacy.[15] Turkey’s diplomatic relations has entered a period considered as neo-Ottomanism or the ‘golden age’ for Turkey diplomacy. Egypt has had limited diplomatic success Turkey now has the opportunity and potential to become the regions pivotal diplomatic power. This is due to: Turkey’s geographical position, being situated on the crossroad of the Middle East, Central Asia, Europe, and the Caucasus, which allows for access and influence in all areas; Turkey also has influence through its former leading role in the Islamic World; and currently with its pro-Western orientation.[16] Turkey's geographical position made it easy for the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to tour surrounding countries, like Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to create a collective support in favour of an immediate ceasefire.[17] The term neo-Ottomanism that is used to describe Turkey’s current diplomatic actions refers to their aspirations for influence in the Arab countries that were once a part of the Ottoman Empire.[18] This goal can be traced back to Israel’s independence in 1948 when Turkey was one of the first nations to recognise Israel as a state. From here the AKP (Justice and Development Party) political party came to power and further extended Turkey’s diplomatic reach. The Islamic roots of this party changed the Western outlook the Empire first took on after its collapse early last century.
The unique contacts Turkey has with all of the major players in the region as well as its NATO membership means that this country is in the idealposition to mediate the areas of endemic conflict.[19] Turkey has improved its relations with former foes (including Armenia and Greece) and former Ottoman dominions (such as Iraq, Lebanon and Syria). In 2005 Turkey brokered indirect talks between Israel and Syria and hence there have been suggestions that it should also act as a mediator between Iran and the US due to its favourability with the west its position in its own region and its success rate with such talks.[20] The Turkish politician Recep Tayyip Erdogan has furthered Arabian popular opinion of Turkey with his condemnation of Israeli’s actions in Gaza terming them to be a ‘crime against humanity.[21] There is a military alliance between Turkey and Israel, which involves joint training exercises, overflight privileges to the Israeli air force and a lucrative arms agreement for Turkey.[22] On top of this he called off Turkey’s sponsorship of the Syrian-Israeli talks when the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, visited Turkey on December 22 of that year to discuss such negotiations but neglected to mention Israeli plans to attack Gaza.[23] These actions, deemed insults, were furthered by Tzipi Livni, Israeli Foreign Minister, who briefed the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, on their campaign that Christmas eve in Cairo.[24]
Turkey is currently showing the ability to observe and respect a balance of power in this region and is also making an effort to ensure that all actors are kept involved in the peace process. This results in Turkey, possibly, having the greatest chance of 'finding a just and sustainable solution to the Palestinian problem'.[25]
The role of Egypt
There were high expectations of Egypt to have a leading role in the Arab world. However, in general, Egypt’s diplomacy has suffered from bad decision-making, been weak, and unbalanced throughout the entire war. There have been several political blunders and failed media attempts, including its constant public attacks on Hamas. Policy-wise, since Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip, Egypt has been mostly supportive of Israel's actions towards Gaza. Most notably, this can be seen in the way in which Egypt applied a trade ban on the border it shares with the Strip, very similar to the one which Israel implemented.
The Egyptian Prime Minister Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak.
During the truce between Gaza and Israel the UNRWA personnel and the Gazan leaders made it clear that Gaza was running out of essential materials; i.e. food, medical supplies and treatment.[26] The Egyptian Prime Minister Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak announced that Egypt would not let Gaza starve and hence approximately 700 000 Gazans broke through the Egyptian border to purchase these essential supplies, and then left, at the same time the Egyptian Foreign Minister threatened to break the Gazans legs because of this forced entry.[27] The inconsistency in government policy and actions has led to Egypt not assisting Gaza with any of its supply needs.
These inconsistencies are further demonstrated with the Egyptian Prime Minister making an announcement on one TV channel stating that their border entrances would not be open; but the Foreign Minister, on a different channel, was giving a statement declaring the Egyptian borders open.[28] This not only created confusion but made the patrol and protection of Egypt’s borders nearly impossible. Once the Israel invasion of Gaza began airing on TV the Egyptian Foreign Minister started to imply that Gaza was to blame for the Israeli attacks, and even went as far to suggest that they deserved what was happening to them.[29]
The ministerial conference that Egypt held, instead of attending the leaders’ summit in Doha, to tackle this crisis was somewhat unsuccessful; the only agreement reached was to back the Palestinians in the UN (and even this took a while to be set into motion).[30] Another diplomatic error was Egypt’s claims of influence over Israel; announcing that they could simply ask Israel to stop the war and it would all be over. This lie and exaggeration was made evident on the 22nd day of war when they called for a cease fire and their request was completely ignored.[31]
^ The current U.S. administration designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
^ This information is a summary of the information available from: Bureau of Eastern Affairs, Background Note: Israel, U.S State Government, 2009, retrieved 17 April 2010, <www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.ht>.
^Carlo Strenger, ‘Talking- Cure Diplomacy’, The New York Times, 25 February 2010, A27.
^Charles Fromm and Ellen Massey U.S. Policy in Gaza Remains Unchanged, IPS, 22 January 2010, retrieved 17 April 2010, <www.ipsnews.net/news.aspidnews=500>.
^Iason Athanasiadis, Gaza crisis spurs Turkish Diplomacy, The Washington Times – Pulitzer Centre on Crisis Reporting, January 5 2009, retrieved 21 April 2010, <http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1280>.
^Selin M. Bolme. 'Chartering Turkish Diplomacy in the Gaza Conflict', Insight Turkey, volume 11 (issue 1), March 2009, p 30.
^Palestine Cause, Egypt and Diplomacy, Media and News through Palestine Views, Analysis and Predictions, Discussions and Diplomacy, 2008, retrieved 18 April 2010, <http://palestinecause.com/?p=656>.
Role of Diplomacy in the Process
Diplomacy in Gaza
The role of the U.S
The U.S. has consistently played a strong diplomatic role in the Gaza conflict and has faced steady criticism for siding with Israel over the conflict.[6] This tension is further highlighted in the following timeline of recent U.S intervention in the Gaza conflict.Timeline of recent U.S. intervention in the Gaza Strip conflict:[7]
October 1991: The U.S. and the Soviet Union convened the Madrid Conference, in which Israeli and Palestinian leaders discussed economic development. Within this framework, Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993, the Gaza-Jericho Agreement on May 4, 1994, and the Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities on August 29, 1994, which began the process of transferring authority from Israel to the Palestinians.26 October 1994: Israel and Jordan signed a historic peace treaty, witnessed by President Clinton. This was followed by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat's signing of the historic Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on September 28, 1995.
July 2000: U.S. President Clinton hosted a summit at Camp David to address permanent status issues--including the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, which failed to produce an agreement.
April 2001: The Middle East Peace Summit commissioned the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell. The committee recommended an immediate end to the violence followed by confidence-building measures and a resumption of security cooperation and peace negotiations.
April 2003: Building on the Mitchell report, the Quartet (the U.S., UN, EU, and the Russian Federation) announced the 'roadmap', a performance-based plan to bring about two states living in peace and security.
14 April 2004: Prime Minister Sharon put forward his Gaza disengagement initiative, proposing the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza as well as parts of the northern West Bank. U.S. President Bush endorsed this initiative viewing Gaza disengagement as an opportunity to implement the two-state vision.
May 2005: Former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was appointed as Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement to work for a revitalization of the Palestinian economy after disengagement.
November 2005: The United States brokered a landmark Agreement on Movement and Access to facilitate further progress on Palestinian economic issues. However, subsequently the Israeli leadership pledged not to work with a Palestinian government in which Hamas had a role.
January 2006: Following Hamas' victory, the Quartet outlined three basic principles the Hamas-led PA must meet in order for the U.S. and the
November 2007: Israeli and Palestinian leaders participated in an international conference in Annapolis, at which they committed to launch bilateral negotiations towards the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
22 January 2009: U.S. President Obama named Senator Mitchell envoy for Middle East peace. Special Envoy Mitchell travelled to the region and has subsequently returned on a nearly monthly basis in an effort to help create conditions to support a two-state solution and to re-launch productive negotiations.
22 September 2009: U.S. President Obama asks for regional assistance to end the Arab-Israeli in a trilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
As the above timeline illustrates, the U.S. has a strong diplomatic relationship with Israel and has shown commitment to promoting a Middle East peace settlement. A recent statement by U.S. Secretary Clinton on 18 April 2010 clearly illustrates this strong relationship, Clinton states: 'pursuing peace and recognised borders for Israel is one of our top priorities. We believe it is possible – indeed necessary – to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that provides Israelis, Palestinians, and all the people of the region security, prosperity, and the opportunity to live up to their full God-given potential. Israel today is confronting some of the greatest challenges in its history, but its promise and potential have never been greater. The United States will continue to stand with you, sharing your risks and helping shoulder your burdens, as we face the future together'.[8] Clinton emphasises that working towards peace in the Middle East and resolving the Gaza conflict is a challenging yet possible task, which the U.S. is committed to working towards.
The current U.S. administration's approach to a peace in the Middle East has faced strong criticism. Carlo Strenger criticises the U.S. approach to resolving the conflict, arguing:' The basic problem is that, like Bill Clinton, the Obama administration believes that the two sides are essentially rational, acting in their own best interests, and that to get the process unstuck the mediator must simply bridge their differences. Rather, it is clear to me as a psychologist that the two sides are steeped in collective trauma, for which the only prescription is diplomatic therapy'.[11] Strenger criticises the U.S. approach for not acknowledging the emotional aspects of Israeli and Palestinian traumas. Further, Charles Fromm and Ellen Massey comment: 'the Barack Obama administration continues to overlook the crisis in Gaza, an approach which some experts say is an extension of the previous administration's policy'.[12] Fromm and Massey argue that current U.S. policy has done little to stop the Gaza Strip from plunging further into poverty and insecurity and that ‘rhetoric has failed to materialise into progress’.[13]
The role of Turkey
The unique contacts Turkey has with all of the major players in the region as well as its NATO membership means that this country is in the idealposition to mediate the areas of endemic conflict.[19] Turkey has improved its relations with former foes (including Armenia and Greece) and former Ottoman dominions (such as Iraq, Lebanon and Syria). In 2005 Turkey brokered indirect talks between Israel and Syria and hence there have been suggestions that it should also act as a mediator between Iran and the US due to its favourability with the west its position in its own region and its success rate with such talks.[20] The Turkish politician Recep Tayyip Erdogan has furthered Arabian popular opinion of Turkey with his condemnation of Israeli’s actions in Gaza terming them to be a ‘crime against humanity.[21] There is a military alliance between Turkey and Israel, which involves joint training exercises, overflight privileges to the Israeli air force and a lucrative arms agreement for Turkey.[22] On top of this he called off Turkey’s sponsorship of the Syrian-Israeli talks when the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, visited Turkey on December 22 of that year to discuss such negotiations but neglected to mention Israeli plans to attack Gaza.[23] These actions, deemed insults, were furthered by Tzipi Livni, Israeli Foreign Minister, who briefed the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, on their campaign that Christmas eve in Cairo.[24]
Turkey is currently showing the ability to observe and respect a balance of power in this region and is also making an effort to ensure that all actors are kept involved in the peace process. This results in Turkey, possibly, having the greatest chance of 'finding a just and sustainable solution to the Palestinian problem'.[25]
The role of Egypt
There were high expectations of Egypt to have a leading role in the Arab world. However, in general, Egypt’s diplomacy has suffered from bad decision-making, been weak, and unbalanced throughout the entire war. There have been several political blunders and failed media attempts, including its constant public attacks on Hamas. Policy-wise, since Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip, Egypt has been mostly supportive of Israel's actions towards Gaza. Most notably, this can be seen in the way in which Egypt applied a trade ban on the border it shares with the Strip, very similar to the one which Israel implemented.These inconsistencies are further demonstrated with the Egyptian Prime Minister making an announcement on one TV channel stating that their border entrances would not be open; but the Foreign Minister, on a different channel, was giving a statement declaring the Egyptian borders open.[28] This not only created confusion but made the patrol and protection of Egypt’s borders nearly impossible. Once the Israel invasion of Gaza began airing on TV the Egyptian Foreign Minister started to imply that Gaza was to blame for the Israeli attacks, and even went as far to suggest that they deserved what was happening to them.[29]
The ministerial conference that Egypt held, instead of attending the leaders’ summit in Doha, to tackle this crisis was somewhat unsuccessful; the only agreement reached was to back the Palestinians in the UN (and even this took a while to be set into motion).[30] Another diplomatic error was Egypt’s claims of influence over Israel; announcing that they could simply ask Israel to stop the war and it would all be over. This lie and exaggeration was made evident on the 22nd day of war when they called for a cease fire and their request was completely ignored.[31]